After reading this week comments on my initial blog post, I noticed that my peers had similar views as me. However, it seems that I may be the only one that thinks Encyclopedias are not “obsolete”. I feel as though people old and young still enjoy the hands on books to gather information. I am not suggesting that Encyclopedias are more reliable than Wikipedia. However, I believe that both will exist for a bit more time!
As for making Wikipedia as a more “reliable” source, I think it is up to the internet consumers do decide what is reliable to them. I think consumers of new media have to understand what they are reading on Wikipedia, and decide whether they take it as valid or not. It is interesting to note the War of 1812 article, since in both new media (Wikipedia) and in “real life” people have different analysis of what the outcome of the war was. Thus, I still believe Wikipedia is a lot like the non-internet world or print media. People will write what interests them or the masses.
Lastly, I think Wikipedia is not going anywhere. The concept of crowdsourcing is quite fascinating. I really like the fact that multiple groups of diverse people can edit something online. I think this brings forth more opinions and views. However, whether these views or opinions are credible or valid is the real question at hand. In the end, as mentioned, this is why Internet consumers ought to realize the mediums they are accessing the information from and question validity everywhere.
Photo from: http://www.techpop.com.au/features/wackypedia-why-you-shouldnt-believe-everything-on-wikipedia/